logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울남부지방법원 2015.04.23 2014나5024
가등기말소
Text

1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

The plaintiffs' claim for revocation of fraudulent act is subject to the creditor's right of revocation.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On February 21, 2011, Plaintiff A’s payment order against Plaintiff A applied for a payment order seeking a loan of KRW 25 million against D and received payment order from Seoul Southern District Court Decision 201Da1902 dated February 21, 201, and the said payment order was finalized on March 17, 2011.

B. On September 19, 208, Plaintiff B filed a lawsuit seeking unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent of the above land and payment of land rent against Plaintiff B, the owner of the building on the above land (hereinafter “the instant building”) on September 19, 2008, the Seoul Central District Court Decision 2008Gahap91932, 2008Gahap129257 (Joint) and the first instance judgment of 2008Gahap129257 (Joint), and the above judgment of Seoul High Court 209Na11458, 209Na111465 (Consolidated) (Joint) (hereinafter “instant land”). On September 30, 209, Plaintiff B filed a lawsuit claiming for payment of unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent of the above land and the rent from Plaintiff B, the owner of the building on the above land, and the judgment of 209Na11465 (Joint) was 200% from the 2010 to the 2015Ga10718.207.10.

C. Meanwhile, on November 6, 2009, D, the obligor against the Plaintiffs, made a provisional registration of the right to claim transfer of ownership (hereinafter “the provisional registration of this case”) as stated in the Disposition No. 2, which was based on the trade reservation made on September 22, 2009 under the Defendant’s name on the instant building (hereinafter “instant trade reservation”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 3 and 7 (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the plaintiffs' claim for revocation of fraudulent act

A. The defendant 1's main defense as to the defendant's main defense is between D and the defendant.

arrow